Central Information Commission
Benedict C Fernandes vs Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi on 2 April, 2026
CIC/CPCBD/A/2025/601152 के ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067 ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CPCBD/A/2025/601152 Benedict C Fernandes ... अपीलकता/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: Central Pollution Control Board (M/o. ... ितवादीगण/Respondents Environment, Forests & Climate Change), New Delhi Relevant dates emerging from the appeal: RTI : 07.09.2024 FA : 30.09.2024 SA : 15.12..2024 CPIO : 25.09.2024 FAO : 09.10.2024 Hearing : 30.03.2026 Date of Decision: 01.04.2026 CORAM: Hon'ble Commissioner P R Ramesh ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"Certified copy of guidelines issued for disposal of complaints received in SUP-CPCB app"
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"This has reference to your online RTI with registration no. CPCBD/R/E/24/00722 dated 07/09/2024 received in the division. In response to Page 1 of 4 CIC/CPCBD/A/2025/601152 your above referred application, the it is to informed that as per provisions 6 of PWM Rules, 2016(as amended) local body is responsible for development and setting up of infrastructure for segregation, collection, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of the plastic waste either on its own or by engaging agencies. Further Copy of Plastic Waste Management Rules is placed at Annexure-1.
Responsibility of enforcement of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 has been already deliberated in PWM rules, no separate guidelines are issue for disposal of complaints."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 09.10.2024 observed as under:-
1. Seen the appeal preferred by Shri Benedict C Fernandes, R/o ferns Villa, Majila, Kankanady, Mangalore, the appellant vide RTI Appeal Registration No. CPCBD/A/E/24/00099 dated September 30, 2024, under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. I have gone through the entire records available in the file including the RTI application vide RTI Reg. No. CPCBD/R/E/24/00722 dated September 07, 2024, and the reply of the CPIO dated September 23, 2024.
3. The appeal is examined, and CPIO is directed to provide clear reply to the appellant within 10 days of receipt of this order.
In view of the above facts, I conclude the appeal as disposed. A copy of this order may be given to all concerned.
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.12.2024.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Page 2 of 4CIC/CPCBD/A/2025/601152 Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Shri G. Thirumurthy Scientist F and Shri Yogesh Chandra - participated in the hearing.
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information ha snot been provided to him till date.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that responsibility of enforcement of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 has been already deliberated in PWM rules, no separate guidelines have been issued for disposal of complaints.
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has sought certified copy of guidelines issued for disposal of complaints received in SUP-CPCB app. It is noted that the PIO has stated in his reply and even during hearing that no separate guidelines have been issued for disposal of complaints received in SUP-CPCB app. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. Commission notes that 'information' as defined in the section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the public authority. Furthermore, the RTI Act, 2005 does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to create or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Page 3 of 4 CIC/CPCBD/A/2025/601152 Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Director-(UPC-II) & CPIO, Central Pollution Control Board (M/o. Environment, Forests & Climate Change), Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar, New Delhi-110032.
2 Benedict C Fernandes Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)